• Can you think of ways in which social Darwinist grammar is found in welfare and administrative systems?

In welfare and administrative systems, the eliminationist grammar morphs into technocratic triage. The judgment of fitness is externalized not to "Nature" or "God," but to "The Data," "The Metrics," or "Efficient Allocation."

1. Deinstitutionalization (Its Dark Side)

While deinstitutionalization was a necessary and humanitarian move away from carceral asylums, its failure to fully fund community-based care revealed an underlying Social Darwinist calculation:

• The Sorting Mechanism: The sickest, most difficult-to-manage patients were de-prioritized once outside the institution.

• The Eliminationist Grammar: The state transferred the financial and logistical burden of "unfit" lives from the public purse (asylums) to the individual/family, or, more often, to the street (homelessness, incarceration). This was a managerial move that effectively said: the "unfit" who cannot "adapt" to the community environment will simply be eliminated from the social ledger of responsibility.

2. Welfare Systems and Poverty Relief

Social Darwinism in welfare policy and poverty relief operates through the logic of "Capacity" and "Deservingness."

• Productivity-Based Metrics: Many poverty relief and disability systems rely on metrics like "capacity to benefit," "productivity potential," or "ability to be competitive in the labor market." This is the progressive utilitarian continuation.

  • In Practice: A person whose disability or age makes them statistically less likely to become a "productive" worker is statistically disfavored in resource allocation, prioritizing those who offer a better "return on investment" to the state. The "elimination" is subtle: it's not direct death, but a denial of the resources required for a flourishing life, making them statistically disfavored lifeforms.

• Moralization of Need: Welfare reforms often focus on "workfare" or imposing moralistic requirements (e.g., drug testing, behavioral mandates) on recipients.

• The Eliminationist Grammar: This implies that poverty is not a structural failure but a moral failure—the recipient is lazy or unwise. The state must use its power to force fitness (productivity) or eliminate support for those judged morally "unfit" or unwilling to "strive."
  
  
  
  
  Can you think of ways in which social Darwinist grammar is found in the Psy disciplines?

• Beyond the concepts of individual "willpower," meritocratic personality types, and therapeutic victim-blaming already discussed, the Social Darwinist grammar permeates the Psy disciplines in more subtle, structural, and diagnostic ways.

  Here are a few additional ways the eliminationist grammar of Social Darwinism manifests in psychology and related fields:

  Psychometrics and the Bell Curve

  The foundational use of psychometrics—the science of measuring mental capacities—often inadvertently carries a Social Darwinist residue, specifically concerning the assumed distribution of human traits.

  • The Sorting Mechanism: The reliance on concepts like the Bell Curve to represent intelligence (IQ), personality traits, and aptitudes reinforces the idea of a fixed, natural hierarchy of human potential. While the Bell Curve is a mathematical model, its application in human sorting implies that a small percentage is "naturally gifted" (the winners/fit) and a small percentage is "naturally deficient" (the losers/unfit).

  • The Eliminationist Grammar: This system validates the idea of meritocratic determinism—that success is primarily due to a biologically fixed, differentially distributed innate quality—thereby making stratification appear objective, necessary, and scientifically validated, rather than socially constructed.

  Developmental Psychology and "Deficit Models"

  Social Darwinism's core principle—that some are inherently "less fit"—is often re-coded in developmental psychology through deficit models that implicitly pathologize difference.

  • The Sorting Mechanism: When studying minority or marginalized groups, researchers historically used white, middle-class norms as the standard for "normal" development. Differences in cognitive styles, attachment patterns, or emotional expression that did not align with this standard were labeled as "deficits," "disorders," or "disruptions."

  • The Eliminationist Grammar: This approach implies a developmental hierarchy where certain cultural or socioeconomic groups are seen as "naturally less advanced" or "less capable" of reaching the optimal state of human flourishing. It makes the unfit less of a biological category and more of a developmental category that requires correction or management to fit the dominant norm.

  The Stigma of "Disorder"

  The very process of psychiatric diagnosis can invoke an eliminationist logic, especially in its public perception.

  • The Sorting Mechanism: Diagnosis is intended to be descriptive and remedial. However, in popular culture and often in administrative contexts, a diagnosis can act as an ontological classification, marking an individual as fundamentally "broken," "disabled," or "non-standard." This contrasts them sharply with the undiagnosed, "normal" population.

  • The Eliminationist Grammar: When mental illness is viewed as a personal failing (e.g., "they couldn't cope," "they weren't strong enough") rather than a complex biological, social, and psychological interaction, the diagnosis becomes a quasi-scientific justification for their marginalization. The "unfit" are those whose minds are not robust enough to withstand the "struggle" of modern life.

   Organizational and Industrial Psychology

  The application of psychological principles in the workplace often explicitly reinforces the Social Darwinist concept of survival by outperformance.

• The Sorting Mechanism: Systems of Performance Management, "Forced Ranking" (ranking employees on a mandatory curve), and "Up-or-Out" corporate cultures are explicit mechanisms for identifying and eliminating the "weakest links."

• The Eliminationist Grammar: This approach naturalizes the workplace as an evolutionary struggle, where competitive success is the only measure of inherent human value. It casts those who are laid off, cannot keep up, or fail to climb the corporate ladder as "non-competitive workers"—the economic equivalent of the biologically "unfit." The market's "invisible hand" is thus mediated and executed by corporate psychology tools.

• 
  

Can you think of ways in which social Darwinist grammar is found in education systems?

• The Social Darwinist grammar permeates education systems primarily through institutional structures and ideologies that externalize sorting and justify resulting inequality as a product of natural, measurable differences in student "fitness" (ability/effort), rather than a failure of the system itself.

  The core ways this manifests are:

  ---

  1.  The Ideology of Meritocracy and "The Race"

  The education system often frames itself as the perfect meritocracy, an objective engine for social mobility where individual success is a direct result of effort + talent = merit (the formula proposed by Michael Young, who originally used the term ironically to critique the system).

  • The Sorting Mechanism: This ideology turns schooling into a zero-sum competition (a race). Students are told that those who work hard and are innately smart will win (get into top universities, get better jobs), and those who fail have only themselves to blame for a lack of inner qualities (grit, discipline, intelligence).

  • The Eliminationist Grammar: It translates Social Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" into "success of the most meritorious." When students from low socioeconomic backgrounds fail, the meritocratic narrative attributes this to a personal deficit (low talent, low effort) rather than structural barriers (unequal resources, poor nutrition, high parental stress), thereby legitimizing class and race stratification as a fair outcome of natural differences.

  2. High-Stakes Standardized Testing

  Standardized tests (like entrance exams, national achievement tests, or final certification exams) are arguably the most overt mechanism of the Social Darwinist grammar in education.

  • The Sorting Mechanism: Tests are positioned as an impersonal, objective filter that scientifically determines a student's innate cognitive capacity (i.e., their "fitness"). The scores are used as gatekeepers to advanced tracks, selective schools, and higher education.

  • The Eliminationist Grammar: This system enforces the idea that intelligence is a fixed, single number (reminiscent of Francis Galton's eugenics and the early history of IQ testing). By making these tests "high-stakes," the system creates a winnowing process where failure is interpreted as an objective declaration of deficiency in the individual, rather than a failure of the test to capture diverse skills, or a failure of the school to provide adequate resources.

  3.  Tracking, Streaming, and Ability Grouping

  The practice of sorting students into different academic paths—tracking in high school (e.g., college prep vs. vocational), streaming within a subject, or ability grouping in elementary school—is a structural implementation of eliminationist sorting.

  • The Sorting Mechanism: Students are classified and placed in hierarchical groups (remedial, standard, advanced). Crucially, the quality of instruction, teacher expertise, and curriculum rigor often varies dramatically between tracks. Low-track students receive a less challenging and less ambitious curriculum.

  • The Eliminationist Grammar: This is administrative sorting based on perceived innate difference, often correlating closely with socioeconomic status and race. Once placed in a lower track, upward mobility is rare, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The system says: "We are simply meeting the needs of those with lower capacity," thereby legitimizing a lifelong ceiling on their educational and occupational attainment based on a judgment made early in life. The "unfit" are steered toward low-skill jobs, making their low social status appear to be a consequence of their educational sorting rather than social inequity.

  Gemini